Whose dominance at Wimbledon was most similar to Nadal's dominance at Roland Garros?

Sampras

Federer

I've seen some cray-cray "what-if" stuff posted here but this one takes the cake. So because Sampras's coach passed away, Sampras is somehow made out to be a better claycourter than he actually is?

Click to expand...

No thats not what I said. I said he was better on clay under his old coach Gullickson before he died. :neutral: Thats kind of obvious.. Look at his clay credentials from 92 or 93-96.. Then after his coach died.

Before his old coach died, Pete was very good on clay (again winning Rome, Davis Cup, making QF and SF appearances at the French, beating Bruguera, Courier, Muster etc.) .. It was after 96 when he died that Pete's clay game fell off and by 1997 he pretty much quit contending on the surface.

Learn some tennis history my man.

Click to expand...

Learn how to think critically. You're saying somebody other than Sampras was the main reason Sampras couldn't play on clay anymore. That's absurd, especially since Pete wasn't codependent like some champions. Annacone said Sampras had more self-belief, that he was the only one who truly believed in himself all the time. Sampras was 25-going on-26 at the start of the 1997 season and guys like Bruguera, Courier, Muster were fading. He could have put some good runs up on the dirt. It's bizarre to say a 25 year old number 1 tennis player can't compete on a surface because of his coach.

And why couldn't Pete have a positive h2h vs. nadal exactly? Pete would whipe the floor with Nadal on every surface BUT clay. Thats about 4 surfaces Pete has the advantage over Nadal on (Hards slow or fast, Grass and indoor carpeting or Hardcourt)

Click to expand...

You're not getting it. Let's say they play 14 matches on clay and 14 on other surfaces (because those are the circumstances in the Federer-Nadal rivalry). 50-50 clay/other surface split. It's pretty implausible to think Sampras wouldn't have a negative head-to-head under those circumstances.

Learn how to think critically. You're saying somebody other than Sampras was the main reason Sampras couldn't play on clay anymore. That's absurd, especially since Pete wasn't codependent like some champions. Annacone said Sampras had more self-belief, that he was the only one who truly believed in himself all the time.

You're not getting it. Let's say they play 14 matches on clay and 14 on other surfaces (because those are the circumstances in the Federer-Nadal rivalry). It's pretty implausible to think Sampras wouldn't have a negative head-to-head under those circumstances.

Click to expand...

Those are the circumstances?? So just negate the fact of all those other wins Nadal has posted over Fed OUTSIDE of clay for his career since what 2004? :shock:

Fed has had issues with Nadal everywheres outside of indoors. I wouldn't expect Pete to have the same issues with the #2 guy for his entire career on EVERY surface. I don't think Pete would have allowed that. Like Fed has allowed Nadal to just literally bully him around everywheres but indoors

Those are the circumstances?? So just negate the fact of all those other wins Nadal has posted over Fed OUTSIDE of clay for his career since what 2004? :shock:

Fed has had issues with Nadal everywheres outside of indoors.

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ man. I'm not negating anything. Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm saying, lets say Sampras and Nadal play 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent on other surfaces, just like Federer and Nadal did. It's reasonable to suggest Nadal would have the lead in the head-to-head.

What don't you get? Of course those are the circumstances. They did play 14 times on clay and 14 times on other surfaces. That actually happened. What are you arguing about? lol..

Fed has had issues with Nadal everywheres outside of indoors. I wouldn't expect Pete to have the same issues with the #2 guy for his entire career on EVERY surface. I don't think Pete would have allowed that. Like Fed has allowed Nadal to just literally bully him around everywheres but indoors

Those are the circumstances?? So just negate the fact of all those other wins Nadal has posted over Fed OUTSIDE of clay for his career since what 2004? :shock:

Fed has had issues with Nadal everywheres outside of indoors. I wouldn't expect Pete to have the same issues with the #2 guy for his entire career on EVERY surface. I don't think Pete would have allowed that. Like Fed has allowed Nadal to just literally bully him around everywheres but indoors

Jesus Christ man. I'm not negating anything. Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm saying, lets say Sampras and Nadal play 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent on other surfaces, just like Federer and Nadal did. It's reasonable to suggest Nadal would have the lead in the head-to-head.

What don't you get? Of course those are the circumstances. They did play 14 times on clay and 14 times on other surfaces. That actually happened. What are you arguing about? lol..

Click to expand...

Oh ok... Let play that game.. Frig it.. Lets just make the h2h on hard court and grass... You think Fed would still manage the h2h lead over Nadal?

Hes 0-2 vs. nadal at the AO. 2-1 vs. Nadal on grass (2 of those before Nadal primed mind you) and I think overall with a losing record to Nadal on hard courts in general..

I dont give a flying hippo crap if you want to include clay or get rid of clay all together.. Outside of indoors, Nadal WILL have the h2h advantage over Roger. I dont' care you give them 1000 matches and 90 percent on hard courts and grass.

Nadal gives Fed issues EVERYWHERES but indoors. Hes a nightmare matchup for Roger. Roger hates playing him.. He can get in Roger's head quicker then a hiccup. And Roger is afraid to deal with him.. has been his whole career.. And sorry.. Not on just clay.

Its nice you can play your little "clay game" but nadal has been owning Fed his whole career.. You would have a point if Nadal major wins over Roger only came on clay.. But sadly for you they did not

Oh ok... Let play that game.. Frig it.. Lets just make the h2h on hard court and grass... You think Fed would still manage the h2h lead over Nadal?

Hes 0-2 vs. nadal at the AO. 2-1 vs. Nadal on grass (2 of those before Nadal primed mind you) and I think overall with a losing record to Nadal on hard courts in general..

I dont give a flying hippo crap if you want to include clay or get rid of clay all together.. Outside of indoors, Nadal WILL have the h2h advantage over Roger. I dont' care you give them 1000 matches and 90 percent on hard courts and grass.

Nadal gives Fed issues EVERYWHERES but indoors. Hes a nightmare matchup for Roger. Roger hates playing him.. He can get in Roger's head quicker then a hiccup. And Roger is afraid to deal with him.. has been his whole career.. And sorry.. Not on just clay.

Its nice you can play your little "clay game" but nadal has been owning Fed his whole career.. You would have a point if Nadal major wins only came on clay.. But sadly for you they did not

Click to expand...

I'm not playing any game. You're making things really complicated here. YOU keep arguing that Nadal owned Federer, and Sampras wouldn't let the same thing happen. I merely said, under the same circumstances, the same thing would happen to Sampras. It would be utterly shocking if Sampras beat Nadal more than once (or even once) in 14 meetings on clay, yet you would expect Nadal to have a few scalps versus Sampras on hardcourts or grass. The only way for Sampras to "not let that happen" is to beat him every single time they played on a non-clay surface. Stop side-stepping. I'm being very, VERY straightforward. If Sampras and Nadal played half their matches on clay, it's pretty much certain Nadal would end up with a positive head-to-head overall. We're arguing Nadal and Sampras, not Nadal and Federer. Try keeping up.

"sadly for me"? - man, I'm not a fanatic lol, I've been watching tennis since the late 80s as a 5 year old kid, I've had lots of favourites over the years and I appreciated Sampras's complete game although he wasn't my favourite. I'm just arguing against your (IMO) inane conclusions -- no agenda.

I'm not playing any game. You're making things really complicated here. YOU keep arguing that Nadal owned Federer, and Sampras wouldn't let the same thing happen. I merely said, under the same circumstances, the same thing would happen to Sampras. It would be utterly shocking if Sampras beat Nadal more than once (or even once) in 14 meetings on clay, yet you would expect Nadal to have a few scalps versus Sampras on hardcourts or grass. Stop side-stepping. I'm being very, VERY straightforward. If Sampras and Nadal played half their matches on clay, it's pretty much certain Nadal would end up with a positive head-to-head overall. We're arguing Nadal and Sampras, not Nadal and Federer. Try keeping up.

"sadly for me"? - man, I'm not a fanatic lol, I've been watching tennis since the late 80s as a 5 year old kid, I've had lots of favourites over the years and I appreciated Sampras's complete game although he wasn't my favourite. I'm just arguing against your (IMO) inane conclusions -- no agenda.

Click to expand...

I would wager Nadal over Fed 90 percent of the time OUTSIDE of clay at the vs. Fed . However, theres no way I would wager for Nadal over Pete 90 percent of the time outside on clay. Thats what I'm saying. LOL. Under the same circumstances, no.. Because I dont believe Pete would be losing to Nadal that many times outside of clay as Fed did.

Fed got 1-2 big wins over Nadal on a faster clay.. Hell I do believe Pete could manage 1-2 big wins on a faster clay vs. nadal. That point is completely moot in that regard. I mean why not? its just 1 or 2 matches. On a faster clay, and Pete serving big and hitting big.. Why not. HEs beaten some big names himself on clay as I have already listed

I would wager Nadal over Fed 90 percent of the time OUTSIDE of clay at the vs. Fed . However, theres no way I would wager for Nadal over Pete 90 percent of the time outside on clay. Thats what I'm saying. LOL. Under the same circumstances, no.. Because I dont believe Pete would be losing to Nadal that many times outside of clay as Fed did

Click to expand...

You're still not getting it. Stop with the strawmans. All I said in this thread, for the 120912031230921th time, is that if Sampras and Nadal played half their matches on clay and half their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would lead in the head-to-head. Why are you arguing about something else?

PS -- 90% of the time is a pretty huge exaggeration. Their head to head outside of clay is even. However, no need respond to this part of my post. You're just gonna strawman the hell out of it.

You're still not getting it. Stop with the strawmans. All I said in this thread, for the 120912031230921th time, is that if Sampras and Nadal played half their matches on clay and half their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would lead in the head-to-head. Why are you arguing about something else?

Click to expand...

You are not listening.. I already said, Fed got 1-2 big wins on Nadal on clay.. To say Pete couldn't manage the same? Why not? Again hes beaten Muster, Bruguera, Courier among others. Pete HAS beaten some big talented clay courters himself. To think he couldn't manage 1-2 wins (just as Federer did) once in a while.

ANd besides as I said, anything outside of indoors, I'll give Nadal the advantage over Fed more times then not. Its the matchup issue, its the fact Fed fumbles at his head like a freshmen pulling at a panty kirtle and gets in mental funks when he sees Nadal on the other end of the court.

You are not listening.. I already said, Fed got 1-2 big wins on Nadal on clay.. To say Pete couldn't manage the same? Why not? Again hes beaten Muster, Bruguera, Courier among others. Pete HAS beaten some big talented clay courters himself. To think he couldn't manage 1-2 wins (just as Federer did) once in a while.

ANd besides as I said, anything outside of indoors, I'll give Nadal the advantage over Fed more times then not. Its the matchup issue, its the fact Fed fumbles at his head like a freshmen pulling at a panty kirtle when he sees Nadal on the other end of the court.

Clay has NOTHING to do with it

Click to expand...

For fricks sake. If Nadal and Sampras played 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent of their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would have the head-to-head advantage. That's what I'm trying to say and you refuse to respond to it directly yet keep arguing with me. In this whole thread you haven't once addressed that head-on. Stop trying to turn this into something it isn't. It doesn't matter if Sampras would have the edge on other surfaces -- I think any reasonable person would see that if they played 50 percent clay-50 percent other surfaces, Nadal would hold the lead.

For fricks sake. If Nadal and Sampras played 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent of their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would have the head-to-head advantage. That's what I'm trying to say and you refuse to respond to it directly yet keep arguing with me. In this whole thread you haven't onced addressed that head-on.

Click to expand...

No.. The h2h would be probably equal. Does Pete lose to Nadal on hard courts and grass at the slams to Nadal as Fed does ? Not IMO he doesn't.

No.. The h2h would be probably equal. Does Pete lose to Nadal on hard courts and grass at the slams to Nadal as Fed does ? Not IMO he doesn't.

Click to expand...

So you think Nadal would be roughly 13-1 versus Pete on clay and 1-13 off clay? Good. That's all I needed to know. Heck I might not agree with it in the least (guys like Ferreira had more than their share of wins against Pete off clay yet they weren't half the player Nadal was), but at least you actually answered the question. Only took 3 pages. Good for you, buddy.

So you think Nadal would be roughly 13-1 versus Pete on clay and 1-13 off clay? Good. That's all I needed to know. Heck I might not agree with it in the least, but at least you actually answered the question. Only took 3 pages. Good for you, buddy.

Click to expand...

Like I said (if you read).. it depends on what clay we are talking about of course.. The faster stuff we got today or the slow Monte Carlo type clay of the 90s

Nadal at RG is clearly above either at Wimbledon in pure dominance. Sampras at Wimbledon is a bit above Federer at Wimbledon in pure dominance, and had way tougher competition than Federer at Wimbledon and even Nadal at RG, so would say Sampras at Wimbledon comes closer. For once an accurate poll result (so far) involving Federer.

Like I said (if you read).. it depends on what clay we are talking about of course.. The faster stuff we got today or the slow Monte Carlo type clay of the 90s

Click to expand...

Well what do you think the best-case scenario would be for Sampras versus Nadal on clay? Either way he'll lose pretty much every time. It's a moot point. It would range from 0-14 to 2-12 (I don't know why I'm being so generous as to give Sampras two wins versus Nadal on clay, but there you go). So what? Nadal will still win.

No.. The h2h would be probably equal. Does Pete lose to Nadal on hard courts and grass at the slams to Nadal as Fed does ? Not IMO he doesn't.

Click to expand...

It is hard to say. Nadal would probably be always a top 2, or at absolute worst always top 3 or top 4 player in any era, especialy with all the clay points he would rack up in any era, which means he couldnt play Sampras until semis or usually finals even of non clay events, so less likely to come up with non clay wins over Sampras, especialy in slams, as Sampras is usually dialed in by then. Had he played Sampras in quarters or earlier would definitely have a shot but that would be almost impossible.

Because Sampras is not Federer, who's vastly superior player on clay. It's very likely Sampras would go 0-14 against Nadal.

Click to expand...

Pretty much lol. Sampras is a vastly inferior claycourt player than Federer AND the guys he beat were great but not as great as Nadal on the dirt, so no it doesn't necessarily mean Sampras would score the occasional scalp against Nadal on clay. He'd probably get shutout.

Even if Sampras played Nadal all the same number of times on all surfaces as Federer does, his overall head to head would still be better. Imagine Nadal leading Sampras 5-2 on outdoor hard courts, lol, would never happen. The only place Federer is really able to get the better of Nadal is indoors, on grass he would be trailing in H2H now if their last grass meeting hadnt been way back in 2008, and if a Nadal really weak on grass at that point had not somehow stumbled into the 06 Wimbledon final already by virtual default due to the all time most abysmal grass field of the Federer era. Sampras would own Nadal everywhere but clay though.

Even if Sampras played Nadal all the same number of times on all surfaces as Federer does, his overall head to head would still be better. Imagine Nadal leading Sampras 5-2 on outdoor hard courts, lol, would never happen. The only place Federer is really able to get the better of Nadal is indoors, on grass he would be trailing in H2H now if their last grass meeting hadnt been way back in 2008. Sampras would own Nadal everywhere but clay though.

Against Sampras, Nadal would likely go 14-0 on clay. On other surfaces? Yes, Sampras would have the definite advantage. But, is it unreasonable to say Nadal might go 3-11? Or 4-10? Ferreira ws 6-6 against Pete on non-clay surfaces, and in 3 of those wins, Sampras barely edged it out in a tough third set. He beat Sampras 4 straight times in his prime on fast surfaces. I'm not arguing that Sampras wouldn't best Nadal on anything but clay. He would. But I could see Nadal going 17-11 or something like that, given the same circumstances. Or 16-12 or 18-10. But I think there'd be a clear edge.

Against Sampras, Nadal would likely go 14-0 on clay. On other surfaces? Yes, Sampras would have the definite advantage. But, is it unreasonable to say Nadal might go 3-11? Or 4-10? Ferreira ws 6-6 against Pete on non-clay surfaces, and in 3 of those wins, Sampras barely edged it out in a tough third set. He beat Sampras 4 straight times in his prime on fast surfaces. I'm not arguing that Sampras wouldn't best Nadal on anything but clay. He would. But I could see Nadal going 17-11 or something like that, given the same circumstances. Or 16-12 or 18-10. But I think there'd be a clear edge.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I think Nadal would still lead the H2H by a great amount if it was half half on clay/other surfaces. 17-11 sounds like a good number. Nadal would have to score his HC wins in '10-'11 HC level though.

Against Sampras, Nadal would likely go 14-0 on clay. On other surfaces? Yes, Sampras would have the definite advantage. But, is it unreasonable to say Nadal might go 3-11? Or 4-10? Ferreira ws 6-6 against Pete on non-clay surfaces, and in 3 of those wins, Sampras barely edged it out in a tough third set. He beat Sampras 4 straight times in his prime on fast surfaces. I'm not arguing that Sampras wouldn't best Nadal on anything but clay. He would. But I could see Nadal going 17-11 or something like that, given the same circumstances. Or 16-12 or 18-10. But I think there'd be a clear edge.

Click to expand...

Outdoor hard court. Sampras leads 5-2 (best case for Nadal)

Grass. Sampras leads 3-0 (no brainer, Nadal has nothing to hurt Sampras with on grass, unlike baseliner without as dominant a serve Federer)

Indoors. Sampras leads 4-0 (again a no brainer. The matches would be bigger beatdowns than the Federer-Nadal ones here).

So absolute worst case for Sampras would be trailing 16-12. Still better and just outside the ownage range, while 18-10 is now into it. Plus Sampras playing Nadal 5 times in clay slams and 5 times in non clay slams would probably be 5-5 or 6-4 at worst. Nadal doesnt have the game to beat Sampras anytime before his 30s in a non clay slam, other than maybe an upset at the Australian Open, but even then I doubt if Sampras is playing well enough to make semis or finals to play Nadal. Federer of course is 2-8, even with a losing non clay slam record vs Nadal, and the only match Federer was older than 27 was the last one.

Furthermore even if your projected numbers were right the non clay H2H would also be so extremely lopsided in Sampras's favor, and his dominance on non clay surfaces would truly be matching or almost matching Nadal's on clay, that the clay excuse would be more apt here. Since Nadal leads Federer in non clay slam H2H, leads him 5-2 on outdoor hard courts, and wins roughly half their matches off of clay in addition to his extremely lopsided clay dominance, that spin does not work for Federer as much as his supporters like to try, and continue to attempt to in vein.

Grass. Sampras leads 3-0 (no brainer, Nadal has nothing to hurt Sampras with on grass, unlike baseliner without as dominant a serve Federer)

Indoors. Sampras leads 4-0 (again a no brainer. The matches would be bigger beatdowns than the Federer-Nadal ones here).

So absolute worst case for Sampras would be trailing 16-12. Still better and just outside the ownage range, while 18-10 is now into it. Plus Sampras playing Nadal 5 times in clay slams and 5 times in non clay slams would probably be 5-5 or 6-4 at worst. Nadal doesnt have the game to beat Sampras anytime before his 30s in a non clay slam, other than maybe an upset at the Australian Open, but even then I doubt if Sampras is playing well enough to make semis or finals to play Nadal. Federer of course is 2-8, even with a losing non clay slam record vs Nadal, and the only match Federer was older than 27 was the last one.

Click to expand...

I guess it's opinion but I don't think Sampras would go 12-2 versus Nadal if lesser players could challenge him to such an extent. I mean sure match ups are important, but Ferreira had a .500 record against Pete on non-clay yet possessed few of the weapons Nadal does.

I don't see how that's "absolute worst case scenario". Because it's not unfathomable that Nadal could have 3-4 wins versus Sampras instead of 2, so "absolute worst case" is a bit of an exaggeration. Absolute worst case scenario is more like Pete being Rafa more than once on clay, which would be pretty astonishing.

Also, on plexicushion I could see a 30 year old Sampras getting severely out-grinded by Rafa (remember Federer played Rafa this year at the AO when he was 30).

I guess it's opinion but I don't think Sampras would go 12-2 versus Nadal if lesser players could challenge him to such an extent. I mean sure match ups are important, but Ferreira had a .500 record against Pete on non-clay yet possessed few of the weapons Nadal does.

I don't see how that's "absolute worst case scenario". Because it's not unfathomable that Nadal could have 3-4 wins versus Sampras instead of 2, so "absolute worst case" is a bit of an exaggeration. Absolute worst case scenario is more like Pete being Rafa more than once on clay, which would be pretty astonishing.

Click to expand...

Nadal would never beat Sampras indoors or in a major grass final (or even semi) which due to their consistently high rankings in the only times they would play until they were 30 or older. Nadal could beat Sampras on outdoor hard courts at some point, but would never have a winning record like he does with Federer, so 2-5 is about the best he would do if they played 7 times.

You seem to forget alot of these others played Sampras well before finals due to their lower ranking. Anyone who followed Sampras through the years knows that is when he was much more likely to lose, while only losing to the very best of opponents at the end.
I have no idea why Ferrari was a matchup problem for Sampras but others who were like Krajicek and Stich were since they could match his serving at their best, and were attacking players who could take the net away from him. Obviously this is nothing like the game Nadal would present.

Alright then how about Djokovic? He's superior to Nadal on hardcourts and has a positive H2H, yet on clay (where he's also superior to Sampras) he's 2-12 against Rafa.

Click to expand...

The point is matchups I think. Which is the name of the game here and maybe mental fortitude and toughness.. Djoker can rally with Nadal outdoors and he doesn't have the same mental funk vs. Nadal that Fed has.

Djoker isn't that great of a clay courter anyways. So 2-12 vs. Rafa on clay, isn't a huge surprise. I never said, Pete would have a ton of wins on Nadal on clay did I? . Clay is clearly Nole's weakest surface. He can't slide and defend the same as he can on hards. And his serve (especially the 2nd serve isn't up to par). Pete still has that serve in his arsenal and can hit the cover the ball. So even if hes outmatched by a better clay court, you still couldn't sleep on him because his shots,and especially serve was wayyy more potent then Nole's is.

Big hitters tend to trouble Nadal more at times. Even on clay (see Soderling and Isner)

The point is matchups I think. Which is the name of the game here and maybe mental fortitude and toughness.. Djoker can rally with Nadal outdoors and he doesn't have the same mental funk vs. Nadal that Fed has.

Djoker isn't that great of a clay courter anyways. So 2-12 vs. Rafa on clay, isn't a huge surprise. I never said, Pete would have a ton of wins on Nadal on clay did I? . Clay is clearly Nole's weakest surface. He can't slide and defend the same as he can on hards. And his serve (especially the 2nd serve isn't up to par). Pete still has that serve in his arsenal and can hit the cover the ball. So even if hes outmatched by a better clay court, you still couldn't sleep on him because his shots,and especially serve was wayyy more potent then Nole's is.

Click to expand...

If missing points were a sport, you would be phenomenal at it. Just stop with the strawmans lol. Half (or more) of the time when you think I'm implying something, I'm really not. No need to over-complicate things.

Also, Djoker is much better on clay than Sampras. 2 Rome titles, 6-7 claycourt titles at 25, 3 Semi's at RG and a final, MC final and Madrid title. And many many more years to further increase the lead. Yet he is still only 2-12, and 0-4 at RG.

Big hitters tend to trouble Nadal more at times. Even on clay (see Soderling and Isner).

Click to expand...

2 matches in 8 years. It's funny how say "see Soderling and Isner", as if there are many more examples, when there clearly aren't. It's still taking time for this statement to kick in. Do you realize how wrong you are?

Nadal would never beat Sampras indoors or in a major grass final (or even semi) which due to their consistently high rankings in the only times they would play until they were 30 or older. Nadal could beat Sampras on outdoor hard courts at some point, but would never have a winning record like he does with Federer, so 2-5 is about the best he would do if they played 7 times.

You seem to forget alot of these others played Sampras well before finals due to their lower ranking. Anyone who followed Sampras through the years knows that is when he was much more likely to lose, while only losing to the very best of opponents at the end.
I have no idea why Ferrari was a matchup problem for Sampras but others who were like Krajicek and Stich were since they could match his serving at their best, and were attacking players who could take the net away from him. Obviously this is nothing like the game Nadal would present.

Click to expand...

Given the slowing of todays surfaces, I don't think that's necessarily the case. It would be a tough ask for Sampras to beat Nadal at the slow courts of the Australian Open -- not saying Sampras wouldn't win but it would be a tough ask. AND if they were to play 3 times at Miami, once at Indian Wells and 3 times on todays grass, I think out of those 9 matches Nadal would go 3-6. At Dubai and the four indoors matches, he would probably go 0-5, that I will concede.

Fed was owned by noobs in his prime.. How many times did a young Nadal take him out? Canas? Then he was in danger of losing to a bunch of bottom feeders over the past few years at wimbledon.. Even noobs can have a hot day and the favorite can be off his game.

And just wait another year.. You'll see Fed losing to some noobs at slams. That happens when you get older.. Fed will be no exception.

Click to expand...

One thing I can assure you is that Federer will never lose to the likes of Yzaga, Schaller and Delgado at any point in his career, nevermind in his prime like Sampras did.

Wow i can't believe how you all are giving Nadal so few wins vs Sampras outside of clay. Sure he would lost most, but no way in hell Nadal goes 1-13, or 2-12 off clay with Sampras. That's completel absurd, considering Sampras was unable to dominate much lesser players than Nadal (ones who couldn't pound his backand with heavy lefty spin) Pretty confident Nadal could win around 5 matches out of 14 versus Sampras off clay.. This would make their h2h something like 18-10 by my estimation, maybe even 19-9. So yea Sampras would have a bad h2h with Nadal just like Federer IMO

Wow i can't believe how you all are giving Nadal so few wins vs Sampras outside of clay. Sure he would lost most, but no way in hell Nadal goes 1-13, or 2-12 off clay with Sampras. That's completel absurd, considering Sampras was unable to dominate much lesser players than Nadal (ones who couldn't pound his backand with heavy lefty spin) Pretty confident Nadal could win around 5 matches out of 14 versus Sampras off clay.. This would make their h2h something like 18-10 by my estimation, maybe even 19-9. So yea Sampras would have a bad h2h with Nadal just like Federer IMO

In his clay prime (outside of 95) Sampras would go out to the eventual winner of the tournament from 92-96 just about all those years.. Thats not bad really,

Click to expand...

Right, bring on the BS. I guess that's what hopeless tards do when they have no argumentation--resort to outright lying (or not knowing anything about what you're saying and just spouting nonsense) in the hope that nobody really knows (or bothers to check).

So, can you claim one more time (as you did in the post I just quoted) that Sampras lost to the eventual champion at RG '92 and '94?

For fricks sake. If Nadal and Sampras played 50 percent of their matches on clay and 50 percent of their matches on other surfaces, Nadal would have the head-to-head advantage. That's what I'm trying to say and you refuse to respond to it directly yet keep arguing with me. In this whole thread you haven't onced addressed that head-on. Stop trying to turn this into something it isn't. It doesn't matter if Sampras would have the edge on other surfaces -- I think any reasonable person would see that if they played 50 percent clay-50 percent other surfaces, Nadal would hold the lead.

Click to expand...

No problem about that. I think everyone agrees that Nadal would destroy him on clay, he would also probably be the heavy favorite on plexicushion (Sampras never could beat Agassi on the much-faster Rebound Ace) and would be in serious danger of losing some on slow grass. Sampras would be a huge favourite indoor and on fast HC, though. But in the end, he would be seriously trailing, even if he "wouldn't allow" that...

For me I guess it would be Sampras due to the 7 out of 8 attempts (1993-2000) similarity to rafa, but nadal losing only losing 1 match at the FO is just insane his win percentage there of like 98% that will probably never be achieved by someone else at any major kinda like Federer matching borg with 5 consecutive wins at wimbledon i don't see anyone else doing that again

Because Sampras is not Federer, who's vastly superior player on clay. It's very likely Sampras would go 0-14 against Nadal.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What about Michael Stich who beat Sampras on his favorite(fast) surfaces, and said he fear Stich? You don't hear that from Fed saying it to Nadal. And what about Wayne Ferreira who's suppose to be much better player on hardcourt and carpet? Two can play that game.

The point is Fed >> Sampras on clay, and since he managed to beat Nadal 2 times does suggest that Sampras would go winless(0-14) against Nadal. Keep in mind Fed was the one who snapped Nadal's 81 clay winning streak. It takes Federer, Nole(and that was when people said Nadal have declined on clay), and Soderling who had a monster game in 2009 to beat Nadal. Sampras ain't going to beat Nadal on clay, period.

Outside of clay, you have to consider the courts are slower and produce higher bounce. S/v style today is not a winning recipe, which the condition benefits for Nadal. Given that Pete play Nadal 14 times, I see Pete ahead 8-6, that's because they will meet on 4 times during indoor season, and the rest pretty much was on slow hardcourt/grass.

Another factor is Fed post prime is more consistent than Sampras post prime. Fed mopped the floor during indoor season(2010-11) while Sampras lost to Guga in 2000 WTF. One could argue 2010 Nadal would beat 2000 Sampras at WTF.

Of course in realilty Sampras wouldn't meet Nadal 18 times(at the exact same age) because he wasn't consistent to reach the deep round or isn't as good at Federer. BUT given under the same circumstances for Sampras having to play Nadal 14 on clays and 14 on other surfaces, the likelihood of Sampras's h2h is worse than 10-18.

lol, this has degraded into a discussion comparing the much superior Federer vs vastly inferior Sampras. I'll bite:

Under same circumstances (assuming exactly same surfaces), Nadal would lead Sampras 23 - 5 (and that's being very generous to Sampras).

Sampras is not getting any wins till July. He might be lucky to sneak a win in the slow Wimbledon conditions, that too if Nadal is off his game (most likely in 2006). Pete's best chance to get Nadal would've been the USO, but given that Federer & Nadal have never met there, tough luck Pete!!

Which brings us to YEC. Pete probably gets him in 2006 and 2007, but loses badly in 2010 and 2011 (in 2000, Sampras lost to Kuerten, who's quite inferior to Nadal, and in 2001, Pete was way past his prime --according to Pete clowns). So realistically, their h2h will look like 25-3.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Sampras is the luckiest 2-digit slam winner ever (men or women). His next generation (players who are roughly 5 yrs younger than him) comprised of Kafelnikov & Kuerten (LOL)!! And his "biggest" rival didn't show up for good portion of Pete's prime. Add of all it, what do you have? 14 slams. that's right. Under other eras (not including Federer, because if he played alongside Federer, he's not winning anything), he would've won 6-8 slams (tops). The rest were handed to him because of the lack of challengers in the generation that followed Pete.

lol, this has degraded into a discussion comparing the much superior Federer vs vastly inferior Sampras. I'll bite:

Under same circumstances (assuming exactly same surfaces), Nadal would lead Sampras 23 - 5 (and that's being very generous to Sampras).

Sampras is not getting any wins till July. He might be lucky to sneak a win in the slow Wimbledon conditions, that too if Nadal is off his game (most likely in 2006). Pete's best chance to get Nadal would've been the USO, but given that Federer & Nadal have never met there, tough luck Pete!!

Which brings us to YEC. Pete probably gets him in 2006 and 2007, but loses badly in 2010 and 2011. So realistically, their h2h will look like 25-3.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Sampras is the luckiest 2-digit slam winner ever (men or women). His next generation (players who are roughly 5 yrs younger than him) comprised of Kafelnikov & Kuerten (LOL)!! And his "biggest" rival didn't show up for good portion of Pete's prime. Add of all it, what do you have? 14 slams. that's right.

Click to expand...

Its posts like these that make me not able to take Fed fans seriously:shock:.. You got Pete not being able to beat Nadal until until July and not being able to beat Nadal at wimbledon, and getting taken out by Nadal INDOORS of all places.. Ayee. The same Nadal with his ZERO YEC titles?

lol, this has degraded into a discussion comparing the much superior Federer vs vastly inferior Sampras. I'll bite:

Under same circumstances (assuming exactly same surfaces), Nadal would lead Sampras 23 - 5 (and that's being very generous to Sampras).

Sampras is not getting any wins till July. He might be lucky to sneak a win in the slow Wimbledon conditions, that too if Nadal is off his game (most likely in 2006). Pete's best chance to get Nadal would've been the USO, but given that Federer & Nadal have never met there, tough luck Pete!!

Which brings us to YEC. Pete probably gets him in 2006 and 2007, but loses badly in 2010 and 2011 (in 2000, Sampras lost to Kuerten, who's quite inferior to Nadal, and in 2001, Pete was way past his prime --according to Pete clowns). So realistically, their h2h will look like 25-3.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Sampras is the luckiest 2-digit slam winner ever (men or women). His next generation (players who are roughly 5 yrs younger than him) comprised of Kafelnikov & Kuerten (LOL)!! And his "biggest" rival didn't show up for good portion of Pete's prime. Add of all it, what do you have? 14 slams. that's right. Under other eras (not including Federer, because if he played alongside Federer, he's not winning anything), he would've won 6-8 slams (tops). The rest were handed to him because of the lack of challengers in the generation that followed Pete.

Its posts like these that make me not able to take Fed fans seriously:shock:.. You got Pete not being able to beat Nadal until until July and not being able to beat Nadal at wimbledon, and getting taken out by Nadal INDOORS of all places.. Ayee. The same Nadal with his ZERO YEC titles?

My god the ****s bias know no bounds

Click to expand...

If kuerten could take out Sampras, why not Nadal (I usually don't resort to this nonsense, but I'm playing your game here...)? what does kuerten have over Nadal? Clay titles? NO! slams? NO! HC slams? NO! YEC? yes, but that's the instance that's being used for the debating here, so no point using that.

Wasn't a 29 yr old Sampras (in 2001) wayyy past his prime? Didn't you claim it nor not? so why would Pete stand a chance against Nadal?

Its posts like these that make me not able to take Fed fans seriously:shock:.. You got Pete not being able to beat Nadal until until July and not being able to beat Nadal at wimbledon, and getting taken out by Nadal INDOORS of all places.. Ayee. The same Nadal with his ZERO YEC titles?

My god the ****s bias know no bounds

Click to expand...

During the 1st half of the year, hardcourt are mainly slow except for Dubai, then the clay season. He didn't say Sampras wouldn't have beaten nadal at wimbledon, but suggested that it would be tough because of the condition.

The indoor at O2 Arena isn't like it was in 2000-01, and Nadal performed well in 2010, so I say Nadal would have beaten 2000 Sampras.